Anthropogenic Climate Change

f So, (bare with me here) we know that from 1920 up untill 1998 the planet got warmer execpt between the 50's - 70's where it dipped slightly. Most people seem to put this down to man made CO2 emmissions. However, the planet hasn't warmed for over 12 years now. The troposphere has not warmed at an increased reate than the surface which is completely contradictory to the theory of green house gases being responsible for warming. Ice core records actually show that CO2 has never driven global temperature rises in the past, infact CO2 levels lag behind temperature increases by 800 years. Also, CO2 makes up less than 2% of our entire atmosphere. Mankind is only responsible for 3% of global CO2 emmisions. That means that 3% of 2% of our entire atmosphere is whats causing it all.
Does anyone else think we are being sold a pack of lies by the western governments and the media?
Please write what you think and please try and keep it nice.
Thank you!

I personally don't care about whether or not "global warming" is real and/or is or is not related to C02 emissions.

I don't like air pollution.

In fact, I don't like pollution of any kind.

I think that humans are responsible for an unacceptable level of pollution.

So politicians conservative and liberal can argue the topic as long as they like... anyone can argue the topic as long as they like.

For me it boils down to two simple questions:

1. Is pollution acceptable?

2. If "yes", how much pollution is acceptable?

Well first you should ask is CO2 a pollutent? The answer is no. Its plant food. Without it there would be no life on earth. CO2 is not poisonous. It is non-toxic. Every time you exhale you breath it out and plants breath it in.
While I agree with your points I certainly do not include Carbon dioxide a pollutent any more than water or oxygen (O2)

Did I anywhere in anyway state or otherwise suggest that C02 is a pollutant?

I'll answer that for you: No.

However, some of the same causes of C02 emissions are also the causes of air pollution emissions.

No, did I say you did? No. Why do you guys always take such offense on forums? Chill man

I didn't take offense.

Don't be so insecure.

You took a defensive stance, I apologise if I read you wrong. I shall rephrase - most people, yourself not included, should ask if Co2 is a pollutent as most think it is. People need only read the other climate related forums on here to see that most people consider Co2 a pollutent. You still haven't answered my question, though you did state why. I would apreciate it if you did and also, if you agree Co2is not a pollutent, why you think the emphasis is on Co2 and not gases such a SO2 which is a pollutent and a greenhouse gas and is toxic?
Thanks

Actually it can be. Look up carbon dioxide intoxication & carbon dioxide poisoning.
And yes so is O2. Look up oxygen toxicity syndrome, oxygen intoxication, and oxygen poisoning.

Just because something is natural & even a requirement for life does not make it safe.

CO2 & SO2 are pollutants, greenhouse gases & toxic.
Here:
https://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

We are a long way from those levels and probably couldn't achieve it with only the remaining oil on earth. Not with every plant on earth working against us. We would see some pretty big trees though as the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more o2 they put out and the more carbon they store.

Nope. Scientist say that is a myth. The math does not add up that way. All in all there is an even trade of young tree growth (where the real CO2 take in & O2 production occur- NOT the old mature trees) & the CO2 produced by dead tree decay. Also we are not talking about those levels EVER getting to human toxicity levels. We are talking about CO2 levels getting just a little bit higher & effecting temperatures which affects all of the living world.

But they haven't effected temperatures. If they had, the troposphere where the co2 is trapping the suns rays, would be heating at an increased rate to the surface. It is not. Thats a completely inconsistent with the theory of green house gases being responsible for it. Professor John Christy (who has won awards from NASA for single handedly advancing mankinds ability to measure temperatures of the atmosphere) says there has been almost no warming in the troposphere, and he sends up ballons every. week.
Look im all for renewable energy, better resource management, sustainable food, power etc. Im all for less deforestation, less fishing, less pollution etc. But the evidence is stacked heavily against CO2 being responsible for any sort of a global climate change.

And ok so what? So CO2 can poison in ridiculous levels. You can drown in water, should we try and ban that? Food can poison, lets all ban and restrict that too. Co2 at less than 500ppm is nothing to worry about in terms of toxicity

Not entirely correct. The warming of the troposphere has slowed (not stopped, nor cooled as some want to confuse the issue). The warming in the oceans continues at an alarming rate. At some point the atmospheric temperatures will start back up sharply.

Eating small amounts of food over your required daily amounts add up & cause ---- surprise, disease & death too.

So what?